Opinion
September 18, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.).
Domingo "Mingo" Le Braun, a reputed drug dealer, had allegedly attempted to recruit one "Reggie" to kill the defendant, as an act of revenge for having allegedly participated in the kidnapping of Mingo's daughter. Mingo was apparently unaware that Reggie was defendant's friend. Alerted by Reggie, defendant sought out Mingo and on June 27, 1983, near Eighth Avenue and 116th Street, at approximately 7:00 P.M., on a crowded public street shot and killed Mingo, for which he was convicted of murder in the second degree.
Evidence of defendant's prior arrest with other persons implicated in the kidnapping of Mingo's daughter, approximately one month before the kidnapping was committed, was probative of defendant's motive to commit the instant murder. Since the jury was informed that the arrest had not resulted in prosecution for any crime, there was minimal, if any, prejudice, and the evidence was properly admitted. It was improper, however, for the trial court to permit a witness to testify that he recognized defendant because he had been told that defendant robbed and murdered drug dealers (People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264). Nevertheless, in view of the over-whelming evidence of guilt, the error was harmless.
The court adequately charged the jury concerning its consideration of the witnesses' interests and motives to falsify in evaluating their testimony. Defendant failed to preserve his contention that the court's general charge on credibility undermined its interested witness charge, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find any error to have been harmless. Except as to one witness, the cooperation agreements entered into by the prosecution's witnesses had no direct effect on their criminal records, but only involved parole and clemency recommendations or compensation. Under these circumstances, the court's comments limiting the use of the witnesses' criminal history to general credibility did not imply that the jury should ignore the cooperation agreements in evaluating their interests or motives to falsify (cf., People v. Jackson, 74 N.Y.2d 787).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.